Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion

David Masover
2006-07-31T20:00:25Z

Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-31 12:17:12 -0700, Clay Barnes <clay.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 20:43 Mon 31 Jul , Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2006-07-31 20:11:20 +0200, Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> Jan-Benedict Glaw schrieb am 2006-07-31:
> [Crippled DMA writes]
>>>> Massive hardware problems don't count. ext2/ext3 doesn't look much better in
>>>> such cases. I had a machine with RAM gone bad (no ECC - I wonder what
>>> They do! Very much, actually. These happen In Real Life, so I have to
>> I think what he meant was that it is unfair to blame reiser3 for data
>> loss in a massive failure situation as a case example by itself. What
>
> Crippling a few KB of metadata in the ext{2,3} case probably wouldn't
> fobar the filesystem...

Probably. By the time a few KB of metadata are corrupted, I'm reaching
for my backup. I don't care what filesystem it is or how easy it is to
edit the on-disk structures.

This isn't to say that having robust on-disk structures isn't a good
thing. I have no idea how Reiser4 will hold up either way. But
ultimately, what you want is the journaling (so power failure / crashes
still leave you in an OK state), backups (so when blocks go bad, you
don't care), and performance (so you can spend less money on hardware
and more money on backup hardware).